Poll: Primary D version
Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisProg at gmail.com
Mon May 24 22:03:10 PDT 2010
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> You both have a point. Clearly not a lot of individual applications
> really need more than 4GB (though unfortunately, many are pushing up for
> the wrong reasons), but then a whole category of them would greatly
> benefit of expanded RAM availability.
I've written at least one application (for my thesis) which ended up using
all of my 4GB RAM and 6GB swap. Of course, that was at least partially
because I was writing it in Haskell and hadn't taken its laziness into
proper account. It was reading in the hundreds of files before it actually
calculated anything since it didn't write anything to disk until it was done
processing (which it naturally never did since it ran out of memory). Fixing
it to write to disk after processing each file (thereby forcing it to
actually process each file before reading in the next one) made it only take
3+ GB of RAM. But I was doing a lot of string processing, and it wasn't at
all a typical app. Haskell was a poor match for the problem as it turns out,
but given D's current lack of 64-bit support, it would have been too -
though for very different reasons.
Still, you work with what you've got. We'll get 64-bit support eventually.
At least I can say that I wrote a program that used up all of my memory and
swap doing something useful (or trying anyway). I don't think that many
people can say that - especially when it was around 10GB total. That project
definitely lead me to upgrade my RAM. But anywho, D is great. And for the
most part, 64-bit isn't necessary. But it will be nice when we do get it.
- Jonathan M Davis
More information about the Digitalmars-d